THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS BLOG IS TO SHARE WITH THE READER ISSUES OF HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE FROM A PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVE.
ORDER OF MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG: USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, UKRAINE,CANADA, INDIA,and CHINA.

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Right wing political groups throughout the world are celebrating
Trump’s victory but rather prematurely. They traditional conservatives and liberals
are sufficiently delusional to believe that they are somehow far removed from
Trump-style authoritarian politics when in fact they laid the groundwork for
Trump to succeed. Meanwhile, some traditional conservative political leaders
around the world are wondering if right wing populism flirting with Fascism is
the way to political victory, never questioning if their policies drove people
to the far right. Others are questioning if BREXIT and the Trump victory really
mean popular discontent with globalization under the neoliberal development
model. Many analysts are already decrying the rightwing course of the American
electorate, as though Clinton was a New Deal Democrat rather than a Rockefeller
Republican with a more pro-Wall Street and more hawkish foreign policy than
Trump.

Political correctness aside, the US was already a
quasi-police state before Trump under both Bush and Obama. Therefore, the socio-cultural-political
landscape was fertile for the new populist Republican leader, especially
considering the corruption scandals that plagued Clinton. It is not at all the
case as many have argued that US democracy suddenly became bankrupt because of
Trump’s victory, because this was the case throughout history, with some
exceptions when reformism became necessary to strengthen capitalism under the
pluralistic society as during the Progressive Era and New Deal.

Behind the new authoritarian figure that will become
America’s president, and behind the Republican victory of both houses of
congress, the real power is corporate America as it always has been. Wall
Street, not Washington, will determine policy under Trump who promised economic
nationalism vs. globalization, isolationism vs. interventionism, job-growth
oriented economy vs. jobs export oriented economy. Mainstream politicians, the
media, and the entire institutional establishment have always projected the
image that elections are equated with democracy.

The establishment wants people to believe that the electoral
process affords legitimacy to the social contract. No matter how manipulated by
the political class, financial elites and the media, elections put a stamp of
legitimacy on what people believe constitutes popular sovereignty. As shocking
as it was for many across the US and around the world, a Trump victory
represents the illusion of democracy at work in a country where voter apathy is
very high in comparison with most developed countries - the US ranks 27th
in the world below Mexico and Slovakia in voter participation.

Besides the illusion of popular sovereignty, elections
inject a sense of hope for a new start in society – the eternal spring of
politics intended to maintain the status quo. An even clearer picture emerges
regarding the distasteful “steak or fish” choices, as President Obama alluded
during the correspondents’ dinner a few weeks before the election to indicate
with pride that there is no third political choice. The larger problem is the
lack of differences between ‘steak and fish’ (Democrats and Republicans) in
every policy domain, except social, cultural/lifestyle issues.

Of course, the very high percentage of ‘negatives’ for
both presidential candidates and the absence of alternatives other than those
that the political and financial establishment chose for people to give their
final approval reveals that people were voting for what each side deemed the
‘lesser of two evils’ – the ‘steak or fish’ choice that the establishment
places on the menu and then the media ‘guides’ voters to choose one over the
other as though it really makes much difference. This is hardly a manifestation
of democracy and a testament of a system far removed from popular sovereignty.

Unlike elections in many developed countries, American
elections have an aura of finality about them. It is as though everything has been
decided at the ballot box until the next election cycle and people must conform.
Elections invalidate expression of dissident voices, but not for corporate lobbyists
influencing legislation. Despite the aura of finality and the historic election
of populist Republican supporting economic nationalism, after the presidential
election the US remains more bitterly divided than it was during the last years
of the Vietnam War under President Nixon; certainly more undemocratic because
of the ubiquitous surveillance state and Homeland Security regime that is here
to stay. Although these divisions are not expressed as part of a class
struggle, given the absence of working class solidarity, they find expression
in varieties of smaller social, religious and cultural groups at odds with each
other.

This is not to suggest that the US is as authoritarian
as other countries claiming to be democratic. Nevertheless, there is
considerable underlying sociopolitical polarization in a country hardly
democratic as its apologists insist. Because of factionalism
(socio-cultural-religious conservatives, isolationists/anti-globalist
libertarians, traditional fiscal conservatives), Republican infighting will
invariably manifest itself when the executive branch tries to push measures
that congress will reject because corporate lobbyists oppose them. Animosity within
the Republican Party and between the two major parties in congress will result
in more gridlock despite a sweeping Republican victory of all branches of
government. This is what Wall Street wants. Gridlock projects the image that
both sides are fighting for the interests of the people when they are really fighting
on behalf of corporate interests. Nevertheless, they present the process as the
essence of democracy and the media reinforces that view.

Trump’s quasi-Fascist America will be unacceptable to
many Democrats who believed that pluralism and multiculturalism in a country
with changing demographics must become a reality with a first female president symbolizing
these changes. On the other hand, Trump voters will be very disappointed once
reality sinks in that the flamboyant charlatan billionaires cannot deliver in
the promise to make America great again in terms of raising living standards. Trump
had raised expectations so high that he the first to be disappointed will be
his own voters. However, he will deliver on the implied promise to take America
back a few decades when white male supremacy was rarely questioned at home or
abroad.

Just days before the election, a FOX NEWS poll of its
own audience indicated far greater pessimism about the country’s future than
the general population. These people also fear deepening division in the
country because the liberal establishment is an anathema to their cultural
identity. With a Trump victory, the Republican popular base watching FOX NEWS
will be hoping that their right wing messiah will lead them to the promised
land of the early Cold War of the 1950s and to the elusive American Dream of
yesteryear. Disillusionment has already set it on the part of many on the
progressive wing of the Democratic Party who see their dream of greater social
justice far removed.

Regardless of Trump’s promises to improve the lives of
the poor and the middle class by bringing jobs back home, the only certainty is
the hegemony of markets over the state resulting in continued political
polarization in society that has turned sharply to the right even more than it
was under Reagan AND Bush-Cheney. Globalization and neoliberal policies (the model
based on state empowering the private sector in every domain and incentivizing
it through fiscal policy and subsidies) will continue no matter what Trump
promised/threatened, and that will result in further capital concentration and
downward pressure on middle class living standards and sociopolitical polarization
will become more evident.

Parading the confederate flag and a hunting rifle, the
Trump voter will continue to feel one with the apartheid culture of the past. Trump’s
supporters will feel marginalized and will become more fanatical. By contrast,
the Clinton voter supporting trans-gender rights and the woman’s right to
choose will be optimistic that the time has come for pluralism to expand the
all-inclusive socio-cultural net. By the end of Trump’s first hundred days,
neither the Trump nor Clinton voter will see much evidence to celebrate a
future rise in living standards.

Many academic economists, private investment firms, the
IMF, the World Bank, and OECD estimate that low growth will be accompanied by market
concentration and jobs exported to cheap labor markets, keeping American wages
low in the coming years. The average median net worth of Americans ranks lower
than 18 other nations and dropping as personal debt is rising. Misplaced optimism
on the part of Republicans will soon be replaced with pessimism almost as
intense as that of the Democrat voter.

Campaign promises to raise living standards have been
made by every presidential candidate in the last four decades. Living standards
have been declining and they will continue on that trajectory according to all
studies on future economic prospects. Considering the low-growth global
economic environment, the high US debt under a system that encourages more
capital concentration and export of high paying jobs, no one expects inflation
adjusted improvement in living standards during the next four years. Moreover,
the low interest rates, which stimulated some very modest growth since the
recession of 2008, are ending. The absence of monetary stimulus will further
impact middle class credit and the consumer-driven economy.

Contrary to appearances, Trump will be limited in what
measures he can pass through congress that relies heavily on wealthy donors and
lobbyists for campaign finance.

The executive branch will be weaker than it was
when Obama succeeded an unpopular president in 2008 amid a deep recession and
US military intervention. The legislative branch will be more aggressive toward
the executive branch than it was under Obama. The result will be greater
political division that only helps corporate America. The share of the economic
pie for the middle class and workers will continue to shrink This in no small
measure because the sharp rise in the public debt will require higher indirect taxes,
cuts in entitlement programs, and higher interest rates to attract buyers for
US treasury bonds - presumably a risk free asset threatened by rising rapidly
rising debt levels undermining the dollar’s value.

Besides the structurally weak economy under neoliberal
policies and corporate welfare, several factors will lead to sharper political
division in the next four years. First, Republicans will be predictably hostile
to any Democrat policy proposal from background checks on guns to relief for
college debt aimed to further the Democratic Party’s popular base. Second, many
conservatives will use the Trump victory to rally popular support for an
extreme right wing agenda to keep the populist wing of the Republican Party
strong. Third, Trump already set the divisive tone by alienating every social
group in the country, but was well rewarded for it, thus reflecting the ideological,
political and cultural milieu of the American mainstream now entrenched on the
far right of the spectrum.

People who voted Trump will feel vindicated about
their attitudes toward women, minorities and foreigner from Latin America and
the Middle East. As their living standards decline, they will become more
fanatic. Their church leaders and local civic leaders along with right wing
talk radio and FOX NEWS will encourage right wing fanaticism because they all
have an ally in the White House. To appease the Republican voters, along with
local law enforcement, many in the military generally accepting of a police
state, President Trump will likely focus on an infrastructural development program
to create some new jobs. At the same time, he will strengthen defense while
fighting out with mainstream Republicans about rapprochement with Russia and
withdrawal from regime change foreign policies.

Co-optation of the Popular Base

For both political parties, the biggest challenge will
be to co-opt the masses while serving Wall Street and the defense/intelligence
industry establishment. The Democratic Party is indeed an umbrella that
includes elements ranging from Rockefeller Republicans especially suburban
women opposed right wing populism, to progressive social democrats and even some
espousing a form of socialism. As middle class living standards continue to decline,
in accordance with IMF predictions among others, the ability of the Democrat party
to remain a large umbrella will be diminished, especially after Clinton’s crushing
defeat.

Unless the Democrats revert back to FDR’s New Deal
politics of the 1930s, something that neoliberals and their wealthy donors adamantly
oppose as do Republicans, the party will have to choose between remaining in
the camp of Rockefeller Republicanism like Clinton, or abandon its neoliberal
commitments and move closer to the Bernie Sanders camp.

The election of 2016 proved that Republicans have
moved farther to the right than anyone could have predicted. Nevertheless,
divisions remain between traditional economic/fiscal conservatives, some Libertarians,
and populist socio-cultural-religious conservatives, including the Ku Klux Klan
that endorsed Trump. For now, Republicans have the luxury to ignore the changing
demographics – Hispanics and African-American voters along with younger voters.

No matter how charismatic the Republican or Democrat political
leader, it will not be easy to compensate for the growing chasm between rich
and poor. As much as ideology matters, in the end the Democrat voter cannot pay
her bills with LBGTQ bumper stickers any more than the Republican voter can do
so with the confederate flag. No matter the obfuscating political and media
rhetoric about disparate social groups transcending social class, socioeconomic
factors determine class as they always have. Both parties will try to
indoctrinate their voters to live by ideology alone, as churches convinced the
faithful masses that salvation of their soul was the only thing that matters.

Suppressing class struggle evident in all aspects of
society, the media will continue to propagate for class collaboration using
nationalism as the catalyst. Subservience to capital identified with the
national interests is a historically rooted belief that has remained in the
social consciousness as secular dogma and taught in schools as gospel truth. The
media perpetually delivers the message that if there is a problem in the
political economy the culprit is the political class, the elected official and not
the financial elites; certainly not capitalism as a system engendering
structural inequality.

Trump will be no different than politicians of both
parties that try to distract public opinion by directing attention away from
domestic issues to foreign enemies new and old alike; pursuing the dream of Pax
Americana despite its costs and limitations in a multi-polar world order where
East Asia plays a dominant global role. The only leverage of the US is to keep
Asia divided by demonizing China, as Trump has done repeatedly. Demonizing a
foreign enemy to distract from focusing on domestic problems worked during the
Cold War to engender sociopolitical conformity amid the triumph of Pax
Americana. In the absence of a Communist bloc, the counter-terrorism ideology that
replaced anti-Communism will be intensified under a Trump administration
because it is in the interest of the defense industries.

As we have seen since 9/11, there are limits and
monetary and political costs to the counter-terrorism, considering that US
policy and practices actually contribute to the growth of terrorism not its
elimination. Even the most gullible right wing Trump fanatics realize that
polluted water in Flint Michigan has nothing to do with ISIS, and everything to
do with the massive tax breaks of the state’s Republican governor to
corporations and the rich of that state. Similarly, people are aware that after
several trillion dollars spent in Middle East wars and counter-terrorism, the
US public debt has risen sharply and the economy weakened.

Sociopolitical Polarization under
Corporatocracy

Even for the apathetic masses that do not bother with
elections, the magic of the ballot box affords the illusion that people have a
voice in the political arena. Politicians, pundits and the media remind the
public that they have only themselves to blame for their elected officials.
They rarely mention rich donors behind the political class that decides who runs
for elected office. The realization that people’s prospects are not improving,
that their children are not experiencing upward socioeconomic mobility, and policy
works to benefit a small segment of society drives some to the extreme right
and others to the left.

The weakened center that Democrats claimed to represent
in fact causes more people to rebel from the right because it is socially and
ideologically acceptable as it has deep historical roots going back to the
Civil War. Trump’s victory offers ample proof of this reality. By contrast, the
US, unlike many countries around the world, has no historical tradition of sustained
strong left wing politics, and see right through the hollow liberal rhetoric behind
which is Wall Street financial interests.

Just beneath the thin veil of conformity that the
media, politicians and mainstream institutions promote, there is lingering
sociopolitical polarization that will become more pronounced now that Trump is
elected and legitimized neo-Fascism in America. The mainstream media actually
reinforces sociopolitical polarization mainly caused by structural conditions
in the economy and a political system representing corporatocracy (rule by the
corporations). FOX News, right wing talk radio, among others advocates a more
authoritarian/militarist/police state course for society. The rest of the media
presents itself as ‘objective’ propagates for the façade of a pluralistic
society that permits cultural diversity, but it is as committed to corporatocracy
as the right wing. In short, corporatocracy led to the election of a populist
Republican who is as close to an authoritarian leader and open to Fascism as
any in the past.

Regardless of whether it supported Republican or
Democrat candidates, the mainstream media in search of the culprit for the public debt is critical of social
security, subsidized housing and health care for the lower strata of society,
school lunches, and social programs. At the same time, the media echoes Wall
Street in blaming government for the conditions of poverty that the political
economy creates. Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’ slogan referring to
Washington never mentioned the source of the swamp which is Wall Street and its
lobbyists. Therefore, the media never
blames corporatocracy but the elected officials serving it in order to preserve
the system. By embracing the authoritarian Republican leader, the majority
voters are revealing that they see greater hope for their future under such a
regime that promises to fight corporatocracy than they do under a Democrat
leader linked to Wall Street.

Political Co-optation Strategy

In their struggle to broaden their popular base, aspects
of Bonapartism, the political strategy of projecting the impression of rising above
classes, have been embraced by both political parties, especially the
Republicans. Unless the political parties representing capital co-opt the
disillusioned middle class and working class elements; unless they give them an
outlet to express their disapproval with a political economy favoring the rich;
unless they give them hope that the system works for them, then bourgeois
democracy collapses and a form of authoritarianism ensues. This is already a
reality in Trump’s America.

A precursor to Fascism in Europe, Bonapartism would not be possible unless all mainstream
institutions and not just the political parties and media contributed to the
promotion of institutional conformity. Although a segment of the population
sees past such efforts at conformity and supports the reformist candidates –
Bernie Sanders in 2016 - invariably those candidates are co-opted by the
mainstream and bring along the masses. This was the case with Senator Sanders
who managed to lead a grass roots movement only to deliver it in the hands of
the Wall Street candidate, as Sanders described Clinton.

Partly because of the Sanders candidacy, Clinton succeeded
to some degree in co-opting the progressive elements of the left into the
Democrat Party. A continuation of the defunct Tea Party behind which was energy
corporations and right wing billionaires, Trump’s populist ‘revenge anti-establishment
politics’ was even more successful in co-opting the masses that the Democrats.
While the Democrats efforts focused on de-radicalizing the progressive elements
by securing loyalty of their leaders into the mainstream, Republican efforts
focused on driving them even farther toward fanaticism as an expression of dissatisfaction
with the Democrat status quo that implicitly castigated the corporate elites.

Co-optation of the masses by Republicans necessarily
entailed a populist appeal to social/cultural conservatives, mostly angry
whites who feel besieged by demographic and structural economic changes in
society. Instead of analyzing the root causes of structural inequality built
into the system, Trump backers blame other social groups, but refused to
criticize the political economy because it is unpatriotic to question
capitalism. They believe that if all minorities somehow disappeared and no
immigrants ever entered the land, then their social and economic problems would
disappear as well and their status would magically flourish.

Because of demographic changes and downward income
pressures, the traditional Republican appeal confined only to fiscal/economic,
and defense-security conservatives is no longer sufficient to elect a president.
Revenge politics of extreme right wing populism was more the message of the
Trump team promising to clean up Washington, to distance itself from the UN,
dilute NATO, exit from international trade agreements or re-negotiate them, and
discipline corporations while first incentivizing them so they do not take jobs
into cheap labor markets overseas.

Disgruntled social/cultural conservatives liked
Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric against the political and economic establishment,
against minorities, Muslims, and women. His emotional appeal similar to that of
the Nazi Party (‘give people someone to hate’) worked because Republican right
wing populism has deep roots and offers hope for reverting to a
racist/sexist/xenophobic America of the past instead of the one that exists now
under current demographic and economic conditions.

The irony is that Obama’s America operated under a
regime many would justifiably label quasi-police state and institutionalized racism
was evident despite an African-American president. Police officers were shooting
unarmed black males and a criminal justice system reflecting institutional
racism not so far off what Trump and many of followers openly or covertly
advocate as a reaction to political correctness and equal opportunity
institutional access (affirmative action).

Weak Executive Branch, Strong Wall
Street

Wall Street pharmaceuticals and defense-related stocks
celebrated with a sharp rise to welcome a Trump victory. However, a weak
executive branch is inevitable under the new president, but it should not be
confused with a weak governmental structure typically characteristic of
developing nations. In much of Africa, and parts of Latin America and Asia,
states are unable to raise taxes and deliver basic services to their citizens.
Although the state structure in the US is hardly like that of developing
nations, there are signs that it is weakening at the expense of the masses
under the neoliberal regime Trump will follow no matter his hyperbolic rhetoric
against globalization. The only certainty about the US election outcome is
policy continuity, which is what the markets want, regardless of a president-elected
who mobilized popular support by appealing to racism, xenophobia, sexism and
authoritarian style politics.

To maintain corporate hegemony over the state, Wall
Street and the media it owns can only prevail if the legislative branch is
compliant and checks the powers of the executive that may dilute corporate
welfare policies in order to maintain the social order by providing certain basic
social programs from affordable health care and social security to affordable
education. One glaring contradiction of the political economy is that people
must be convinced that their interest is inevitably linked to the fortunes of
big capital and not contrary to it; that big capital is not responsible for
declining living standards for America’s middle class and workers in the last
forty years; and that the enemy is the politician.

The media helps to keep the focus on the politician (establishment
political class of both parties) as the evil force behind the calamities that
befall society; never on the capitalists on whose behalf the politician
conducts policy. The media will always examine tantalizing stories of all sorts
about the personal lives of politicians, stories that deserve attention because
they reflect integrity of character. However, the media never examines the
politician as a servant of big capital and the massive influence of corporate
lobbies in determining legislation. The media will never cover social justice
issues, because they lead back to the structural inequality built into the
political economy. In other words, the business of perpetual mass
indoctrination and distraction is essential to keep the majority under the
illusion that they live in a democracy – rule by the people - when in fact it
is Corporatocracy. In
winning the presidential election, Trump gave the illusion to his followers
that they have hope for structural change.

Culture wars and personality conflicts as distraction
from social justice issues will remain front and center to distract people from
focusing on the root causes of downward social mobility. While market hegemony
is a reality of the nexus between state and capital, the media and politicians
have convinced people into believing in the illusion of choice – ‘the future is
in your hands’ and ‘the people have spoken’, as media headline read. The
question for capitalists who were divided between Clinton and Trump is how to
manage the economy and what role the state must play against the background of
intense global competition and shifting balance of power from the West to the
Far East. This is not to minimize the intense political rivalry, the
partisanship of law enforcement and other institutions at all levels of
government, or the ongoing struggle for policy influence.

CONCLUSIONS: Revolt of the Extreme Right

Trump’s victory temporarily
sets into hibernation the majority popular base of the Republican Party while
emboldening its more extreme right wing elements. There is nothing like the
illusion of identifying with a political victory to appease those feeling
marginalized among the lower layers of the social pyramid. Once it becomes
evident that domestic conditions will continue as they have in the recent past,
contrary to Trump’s lofty promises to the middle class and working families, disillusioned
voters will have to be content with the Republican cultural agenda, strong law
and order position, and strong defense policy. Republicans are more likely to support
leaders advocating greater reliance on militarism and police state methods and
less tolerance for dissent. The elements for an authoritarian society are
already deeply rooted in the culture and will eventually come into the
forefront more pronounced than ever.

Ironically, both Republican
and Democrats are responsible for the underlying causes of a revolt by the
masses rallying around a right wing demagogue appearing to be in a struggle
against the establishment. Judging by the performance of the US stick market,
the establishment knows he represents Wall Street and not the unemployed worker
in Cleveland. The media has convinced the average American that it is anathema,
un-American to rebel from the left against the unjust system but patriotic to
do so from the right. With the exception of the Klan label, there is no stigma
attached to rebelling from the right against the establishment which includes
not just Washington but corporate America. The job of the right wing politician
will be to co-opt the popular base and keep it loyal to corporatocracy.

While the corporate media
sings the praises of globalization and subtly criticizes Trump’s economic
nationalism, it can only carry that message up to a point without appearing
unpatriotic. The dilemma for the corporate elites is not to be caught in
contradictory messages when trying to rally support of the masses, something
that has become exceedingly difficult because of the downward socioeconomic
mobilization. This is where it becomes convenient to blame politicians, and to
keep the executive branch weak and government divided so that people blame
everything on politicians who are actually in gridlock in the first place
because they differ about which segment of the economy and which corporations
benefit more than others as a result of policy.

Political campaign promises
are like happy endings in children’s novels. People enjoy reading and dreaming
about such things but they do not really expect that everyone lives happily
ever after.The
lives of the vast majority of Americans will not improve no matter who had won the
White House in 2016. Symbolically and not just because she is a woman, but also
in terms of engendering greater social harmony among the disparate demographic
groups, Clinton was better suited for the sake of continuity from the Obama
administration. However, Trump will serve Wall Street and neoliberal policies
and globalization just as faithfully because corporate America will give him no
choice.

Because of objective domestic and international
conditions in the early 21st century, the middle class is on a
continuing downward slope that radicalizes people either on the right or the
left will realize cannot be fixed by populist right wingers or mainstream Democrats.
Hence polarization in society will continue and it will become much worse after
the next deep recession in the US because the political economy is increasingly
serving a much narrower social base than it has since the 1920s. Trump has
broken all political and ideological taboos about crossing the line from
traditional conservatism to flirting with Fascism. This is America’s political
future and it has been here for some time only to manifest itself more candidly
in Trump.

Monday, 7 November 2016

The
email controversy that haunted Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation ‘pay
for play scandals’ for a number of years all the way to the end of her bid for
president will help to keep the executive branch and central government relatively
weak once she is president, assuming she makes it as polls indicate. If Clinton
top aides lied to the FBI or if they were involved in what the FBI may deem
prosecutable offenses, and if congressional Republicans press this issue, then
the new administration will be distracted by such scandals.

On the
other hand, if the FBI and/or any Republicans were involved in any type of
collusion or conspiracy to secure confidential information from the Clinton
campaign, that too may be subject to congressional investigation to determine
if there are within the FBI and/or Justice Department rogue elements operating
outside legal channels. The FBI investigation into Clinton-related email has
exposed the bureau as a highly political agency rather than the image it likes
to project.

As
published, Wikileak emails simply confirm what had been known about the
Clintons and the Democratic National Committee, namely, the level of preponderate
influence in the Obama government to make sure that Hillary wins the nomination
and the election at any cost, including bending the law to the extent they
could do it. The hacked emails reveal the well known connection of the Clintons
to Wall Street and the awareness of the various players from John Podesta on
down that they were at the very least on the edge of legality but certainly
operating a heavy-handed campaign with the considerable muscle of billionaires
and millionaires behind them.

The
Clinton Foundation charity network does some very good work globally. However,
to make money for the key players in the Foundation is typical of how the
Clintons operate by merging charity and private political and economic interests.
It is clear that the Foundation is somewhat of a front for the family to amass
personal wealth. People who had looked into the considerable wealth that the
Clintons amassed in the last fifteen years did not need Wikileaks to tell them
that the family had cleverly merged charity with private interests as a means
of becoming multimillionaires.

The
Clintons have a well known record as pro-Wall Street politicians while at the
same time trying to appeal to the Democratic Party’s working class and middle
class base that has been hurt by neoliberal policies they have been supporting
since the 1990s. Once in office, she will continue the same neoliberal policies
with a firm commitment to strengthening defense and continuing militaristic
solutions to political crises around the world. This does not mean that there
would be no proposals for development of the infrastructure, reforming the college
debt mess currently at $1.3 trillion, refining health care reform including
come controls on drug prices, as well as other social programs. As president,
Clinton would support a more humane position on immigration, law and order regime
that currently target minorities, gender equality, and socio-cultural
tolerance. To the extent that congressional Republicans go along, some of these
measures will pass.

In a
pluralistic society, these are all important but they will have only a marginal
impact on living standards that will continue to decline for the working class
and the middle class in the next four years. Minimum wage will most definitely
go up largely because corporations are raising it. For example, WALMART adopted
the wage model of COSTCO and discovered that its sales and productivity rose as
a result of raising wages. Along with state-mandated minimum wage laws,
corporations will likely continue raising wages even if the federal minimum
wage is raised at a slow pace in the next five years as expected. Although a
higher minimum wage is imperative as living standards have risen and the US
rests so inordinately on consumer spending, the occupant of the White House will
take credit for supporting the policy.

Politicians above the Law

Political corruption in the US is not anywhere near
many other countries where heads of state enter politics poor and in the
process become millionaires or even billionaires. There are strict laws about
political corruption, but at the same time the laws provide many windows of
opportunity to politicians to profit once they exit from public life while they
become peddlers for corporate America as influence peddlers on policy. Public
corruption is invariably linked to private sector corruption, although rarely
does the media point any fingers at the private sector, focusing instead on the
public officials at the receiving end.

Just as big banks and big corporations are too big
to fail, so are ‘big politicians’ like Hillary Clinton. Presidents have been
impeached, and others removed from office; senators and congressmen stripped of
their seats, and governors have served in minimum security facilities. All of
them for crimes carried out with the goal of illegally amassing personal wealth,
obstruction of justice or some other activity to the detriment of their office.
As long as the politician follows the legal path which is very wide and open, it
is assumed if not expected that she/he will be rewarded by the system and at
some point while protected legally in the process.

Senator Bernie Sanders was right that the Clinton
State Department emails controversy as relating to Libya was simply red meat
for Republicans; the real crime was her close ties to billionaires and Wall
Street. Because of Wikileaks, the world now knows that John Podesta’s
multi-million dollar consulting-lobbying firm in Washington works closely with
billionaires who define the issues and control the Democratic Party. One could
argue that even if Wikileaks had not revealed this hacked email the world
already knew enough to reach the exact same conclusion. Besides, aren’t
billionaires also behind the Republican Party and out in the open about it? Most
people are resigned to this reality and are unlikely to react with much
surprise or hostility that Hillary Clinton and powerful politicians are above
the law or at least the privileged class treated by a different set of criteria
than the average person.

Russia, Wikileaks and Political Distraction

I have no way of knowing if Russia is behind the
stolen email controversy and I honestly do not believe it matters. The accusers
have never provided evidence to prove their claims and if they ever do, the
evidence would have to be carefully scrutinized for authenticity. There are
several issues here. First, if Russia is indeed behind Wikileaks, is it because
it desperately wanted Trump to win. One would have to assume that the Kremlin
knew such interference exposed would in reality help Clinton not Trump. Although
Putin has said that he will work with anyone in the White House, he probably
preferred authoritarian Trump who would not have continued the military solution
option in Syria and would not have pressed as much as Clinton on the issue of
sanctions and containment that Obama has been pursuing.

Putin is correct that it is absurd to assume Russia
can influence the US election even if it tried. On the contrary, American
voters make up their minds on the basis of what goes on inside the country,
relying on their historic ties to a political party and how they perceive the
candidates would best serve their ideological, socioeconomic and cultural interests.
More often than not, the perceived interests and aspirations of voters are
based on illusions rather than anything real. An unemployed coal miner in West
Virginia parading the confederate flag on the backside of his pickup truck
displaying Trump bumper stickers has placed his fate on a 70-year old
billionaire playboy who has benefited from corporate welfare and hardly paid
any federal income taxes in his life. In their most sinister schemes the people
in the Kremlin could not possibly come up with anything to persuade people like
this unemployed coal miner to vote one way or another.

However, let us assume that Russia is indeed behind
the stolen emails, although they and Julian Assange have denied it. If Moscow
is indeed behind all of it, does this absolve the corruption within the Clinton
campaign that was wide and deep? Considering
that public opinion polls indicate that Hillary Clinton is less trustworthy
than Trump, does the public need Moscow to reveal more about the Clintons than
people already know for the last three decades? If more people consider Clinton
less trustworthy than a man who by any criteria is a neo-Fascist, what does
this tell us about the candidate who orchestrated her way to the presidential
nomination by manipulating the democratic process, with the media’s voluntary
support to crush her opponent Bernie Sanders?

Concealing her candidacy behind so many veils of
deception to secure the vote has indeed worked no matter what Wikileaks
reveals, largely because the corporate media representing Wall Street wanted to
advance her candidacy just as it advanced that of Trump in the primary season.
The typical Cold War prism of looking to the evil Russian empire to blame for
homegrown problems has its limits. Propaganda is the essence of politics but it
also backfires when one cries wolf one too many times and there is no wolf to
be found.

"A
gripping, passion-filled, and suspenseful tale of love, betrayal,
political and religious intrigue, this novel entices the reader’s
senses and intellect beyond conventions. Slaves to Gods and Demons
takes the reader through a roller coaster enthralling journey of
personal trials and triumphs of a family emerging vanquished and
destitute after World War II.

Narrated by a young boy, Morfeos, modeled after the Greco-Roman pagan
deity of sleep and dreams, the book reveals the soul of a people trying
to ascertain and assert their identity while rebuilding their lives and
recapturing the glory of a lost civilization.

Seeking liberation from restraints of time, social conventions, and
binding traditions, the deity of dreams provides the conformist and the
free-spirited characters in the novel with venues for redemption that
are mere paths toward illusions. Exploring the complexities of human
relationships shaped by priest and politician alike, the novel rests on
the central theme that life is invariably a series of illusions, some
of which are euphoric, most horrifying, all an integral part of daily
existence.

Striving for purpose amid life’s absurdities after the destruction of
western civilization in two global wars, the characters in Slaves to
Gods and Demons struggle between holding on to the glory and grandeur of
a pagan legacy and the Christian present shaped by contemporary
secular events in Western Civilization."